Elisabetta Tola is a science, data, and investigative journalist. She is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of Facta.eu, an Italian independent media outlet that applies the scientific method to journalism and promotes science journalism as a cornerstone of democratic participation. Elisabetta is also the CEO of formicablu, an Italian science communication and multimedia production agency, and a media trainer and adjunct lecturer in digital science journalism, data and artificial intelligence (AI) at SISSA University in Trieste, Italy. She will speak at the upcoming ESMH Summer School 2025 “Science Communication in the Digital Age”.
What first sparked your interest in science journalism?
Back in Italy, I got involved in the social protest movements of the early 2000s, movements that challenged the exploitative model of globalisation that, as history has since shown, has taken a heavy toll on both natural resources and human rights.
In 2001, I made a choice: I left the lab and stepped into a radio studio. Since then, I’ve used my scientific background to support my work in journalism and communication, always with a focus on defending the environment and the living beings that depend on it.
Throughout history, there has always been misinformation. How is the current era of misinformation different from before?
Elisabetta Tola: It’s true that misinformation isn’t new. Fake stories and conspiracy theories circulated in pamphlets centuries ago. And even in the early decades of modern mass media, propaganda and sensationalism were widespread and often considered standard practice. Just think of how Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany used radio to mesmerise and control the masses, while forcing newspapers to serve only propaganda and distorted news, the very kind we now simplistically call fake news. So there’s nothing new, really.
But in today’s hyper-connected world, misinformation spreads at a completely different pace, and its reach is global. Tracing the source or understanding the motives behind it has become much harder.
Sometimes, misinformation clearly serves authoritarian regimes or flawed political systems. Other times, it’s more subtle, harder to define, harder to fight. I also believe that, for too long, the response to this growing wave of mis- and disinformation has been somewhat naïve. We thought we could solve it with simple tools or one-size-fits-all solutions. That hasn’t worked.
The only real path forward is education: not just media and digital literacy, but a deeper understanding of how the digital communication system works, its logic, its power structures, and its vulnerabilities. That’s why we need more spaces to reflect critically on the system itself.
Can you explain the work you do at FACTA?
Elisabetta Tola: FACTA is a non-profit organization committed to applying the scientific method to journalism. We believe there are clear parallels between investigative journalism and scientific research: both begin with a hypothesis that evolves through systematic inquiry and rigorous evidence-gathering.
We are based in Italy, a country where independent journalism is rare and often poorly tolerated. Italy is facing major environmental and public health crises, yet legacy media frequently fails to deliver in-depth coverage, held back by political and corporate pressures.
We created FACTA because the kind of journalism we wanted to practice, that is rigorous, independent, and public-interest driven, simply had no space in mainstream media. From the start, we also understood that collaboration is essential. Independent newsrooms must work together to strengthen and advocate for the role of independent journalism, especially in countries like ours, where press freedom has always been fragile and is now in worse shape than in previous decades.
That’s why we are actively building a network with like-minded independent organizations, both in Italy and internationally. Our goal is to share strategies, identify common ground, and find practical, sustainable responses to the editorial and structural challenges we face.
At FACTA, we investigate, report, and engage with communities, aiming to provide the kind of journalism that helps people make informed choices and take action — to protect their ecosystems, their livelihoods, and their lives.
What do you mean by the terms ‘peer-reviewed journalism’ and ‘scientific citizenship’?
Elisabetta Tola: By peer-reviewed journalism, we refer to a journalistic approach that takes inspiration from the scientific method – valuing transparency, verifiability, and methodological rigour. But we’re also experimenting with something more: true collaboration between journalists and scientists. In some of our projects, scientists don’t just serve as sources – they become co-creators of the investigation. We involve them throughout the process, from framing the research questions to interpreting the data and understanding its implications. This ensures that our work is both scientifically robust and socially meaningful. And at the same time, it helps scientists reflect on how their research intersects with society – a connection that isn’t always obvious within academic structures.
As for scientific citizenship, we use the term to describe a more participatory relationship between science and the public. It’s about giving people the tools and the knowledge to understand, challenge, and act on issues that are deeply shaped by science – from climate to health to digital technologies. Journalism plays a key role in enabling this form of citizenship, by translating science into something that is not only accurate, but also contextualised, accessible, and empowering.
On FACTA you write that ‘good science journalism can be a powerful tool for democracy.’ Can you explain what makes it so powerful?
Elisabetta Tola: Good science journalism is powerful because it gives people access to the tools they need to make sense of the world, not just through facts, but through methods, questions, and context. At FACTA, we believe that journalism shouldn’t just report on science as news, as great results, but should help build a shared understanding of how knowledge is produced, contested, and used.
In a world where scientific knowledge increasingly shapes policy, economics, health, and the environment, excluding people from that knowledge, or presenting it in a way that is elitist or opaque, weakens democracy. But when science is explained clearly, and its social and political implications are made visible, people can participate more fully in public debate and decision-making. Good science journalism can break down barriers, counter misinformation, and offer citizens a way to navigate complex issues giving them a very strong voice and capability to act on their own lives and communities.
How can events such as the ESMH summer school help promote better science communication in Europe?
Elisabetta Tola: First of all, as I mentioned, the only way to build a healthy information environment is by fostering a deeper understanding of the complex digital communication system we live in. That’s why events like this summer school, especially with so many young journalists, most of them digital natives, are incredibly valuable. Being born into the digital world doesn’t mean being digitally literate or aware.
On the contrary, we often need to take a step back from our daily media habits, pull back the curtain, and analyse how the system really works. We need to understand how information is produced, how it circulates, and what makes it go viral or gain influence. In my experience, even those who work in media often lack this kind of reverse engineering mindset. They’re more likely to be driven by the tools than to understand or control them.
That’s why we need spaces to learn, share, and reflect together. That’s the only way we can truly push back against manipulation and disinformation.